Colonial Medieval Historiography

Sir Henry Elliot concluded that medieval histories were recorded by writers who seem to sympathize with no virtues and to abhor no vices,
and that medieval rulers were sunk in sloth and debauchery and parasites and eunuch revelled in the spoil of plundered provinces.Any other
writer's denunciation of the medieval chroniclers or Muslim rulers would have gone unnoticed, for similar statements appear in the writings of
many British historians on medieval Indian history but are not taken quite seriously. But no research worker on medieval Indian history could
help reading and rereading Elliot's works, so that whether one liked it or not, one could not do without Elliot.Now, it is a recognized fact that the
contribution of European scholars in general and of British historians in particular to the study of Muslim literature and history is invaluable. In
the early phase, their main task was to translate medieval historical works from Arabic and Persian into English and other European languages.
For example, Majors H.R. Raverty and George S.A. Ranking, two army officers, translated from Persian into English the Tabqat-i-Nasiri of
Minhaj Siraj (1881) and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of Abdul Qadir Badaoni (1889), respectively. Similarly, Blochmann, Jarret, Lowe and the
Beveridge couple are but a few names from among those who have done stupendous work in this sphere. Elliot and Dowson's great work, in
spite of a chorus of disparagement by some modem Indian historians, still holds the field even now for more than a hundred years, against any
translations in Urdu or Hindi. Scholars are still learning from and working on Elliot's meritorious volumes. S.H. Hodivala wrote a critical
commentary on this work entitled Studies in Indo-Muslim History (Bombay, 1939) and added a supplement to it in 1957. K.A. Nizami has added
some fresh information on the first two volumes of Elliot in addition to Hodivala's commentary in his 'On History and Historians of Medieval India
(Delhi,1983)'. Elliot's original work is still going through repeated reprints. This in itself is indicative of its importance.Assisted by the translations
of Muslim chroniclers by the first generation scholars, foreign and Indian historians embarked on writing on medieval Indian history. Some
Indian scholars worked under British historians in England. Many others worked in India utilizing research techniques provided by the West.
Most of the conclusions of British historians about Muslim history do find confirmation in the description of cruelties perpetrated by the Muslims
in their own chronicles as well as their reiteration in indigenous source materials in Hindi, Sanskrit, Rajasthani and Marathi. Hindu source
materials are few. They are also not as informative as the Muslim chronicles. But curiously enough the meagre Hindu and the voluminous
Muslim source-materials corroborate and supplement rather than contradict each other about the behaviour of the Muslim regime.

Marxist Medieval Historiography

With regard to medieval Indian history the Marxist historians unwillingly tow the line of British writers of whom they are otherwise critical. The
main interest of the British was to write a history which justified their conquest of India. They claimed that their rule in India was nothing new and
that they were legitimate successors of former conquerors like Arabs, Turks and Mughals. The Mughals were represented as empire builders,
who united India and gave it law and order, peace and stability. Similar was the mission of the British, they said. Facts, sometimes, compelled
the British historians to speak of the atrocities and vandalism of Muslim rule but this did not deter them from upholding its authority. Thus British
historians, while trying to legitimize their own rule, also gave legitimacy to their Muslim predecessors. But in the larger national consciousness
both were considered as foreign impositions and constantly resisted. This resistance the British historians presented as revolts and rebellions
against the legitimate Imperial authority. Marxist and communal historians apply these epithets in the case of Muslim rule, as also did the
medieval chroniclers. Like the latter, the protestations of Marxist historians about Muslim rule in India are lofty, but their conclusions are
grotesque. Such dichotomy is not new.On the basis of the study of medieval chronicles, scholars like Ishwari Prasad and A.L. Srivastava
arrived at the conclusion that the medieval age was a period of unmitigated suffering for the Hindus; to others like I.H. Qureshi and S.M. Jaffar it
was an age of all-round progress and prosperity. Writing about the Sultanate period, Ishwari Prasad says: There was persecution, partly
religious and partly political, and a stubborn resistance was offered by the Hindus.The state imposed great disabilities upon the non-Muslims.
Instances are not rare in which the non-Muslims were treated with great severity. The practice of their religious rites even with the slightest
publicity was not allowed, and cases are on record of men who lost their lives for doing so. According to A.L. Srivastava the Sultanate of Delhi
was an Islamic State, pure and simple, and gave no religious toleration to the Hindus and indulged in stifling persecution. About the Mughal
times his conclusion is that barring the one short generation under Akbar when the moral and material condition of the people was on the whole
good, the vast majority of our population during 1526-1803 led a miserable life. On the other hand, I.H. Qureshi had the mendacity to declare
that The Hindu population was better off under the Muslims than under the Hindu tributaries or independent rulers. Their financial burden was
lighter than it had been for some centuries in pre-Muslim days Nor was the Hindu despised socially. The Muslims, generally speaking, have
always been remarkably free from religious prejudice.

Nationalist Medieval Historiography

Nationalist approach to Indian history may be described as one which tends to contribute to the growth of nationalist feeling and to unify people
in the face of religious, caste, or linguistic differences or class differentiation.But as colonial historical narrative became negative or took a
negative view of India’s political and social development, and,
in contrast, a justified view of colonialism, a nationalist reaction by Indian historians came.Just as the Indian nationalist movement developed to
oppose colonialism, so did nationalist historiography develop as a response to and in confrontation with colonial historiography and as an effort
to build national self-respect in the face of colonial denigration of Indian people and their historical record. Both sides appealed to history in their
every day speech and writing.Indian historians tried to prove the falsity of colonial historical narrative on the basis of analysis of existing
historical sources, as also the hunt for fresh sources. Of course, they also were moved by a feeling of hurt national pride. For decades, their
work was confined to ancient and medieval periods.Nationalist historiography of medieval India developed mostly during the 1920s and after,
often to dispute the colonial and communal approaches. Nationalists historians of medieval India repeated more or less the entire nationalist
approach towards ancient Indian history. In particular, they emphasized the development of a composite culture in Northern India as a result of
interaction among Hindus and Muslims both at the level of the common people and the elite. They also denied the colonial-communal assertion
that Muslim rulers remained foreigners even after settling down in the country or that they were inherently oppressive or more so than their
predecessors or counterparts in the rest of the world. Above all, they denied that Hindus and Muslims lived in a conflictual situation.It may also
be kept in view that the historians we are discussing were handicapped by the limitation of their sources. They had to rely mostly on written
sources, though epigraphy and numismatics were beginning to make a major contribution.

The Nature of State in Medieval India

The nature of State in Medieval India has been a subject of great controversy amongst the scholar. Scholars like Dr. R.P. Ashraf, Dr. Ishwari
Prasad, Prof. A.L. Srivastava, etc. hold that the Muslim state in Medieval India was theocracy.The king was both Caesar as well as Pope. But,
his authority was restricted by the principles of Shariat. His rule was based on religion and the Ulemas predominated the State.However,
certain other writers like Dr. I.H. Qureshi holds the view that The essential feature of a theocracy— the rule of an ordained priesthood—is
however, missing in the organisation of Muslim state.Even Mohammad Habib says, “It (Muslim state in India) was not a theocratic state in any
sense of the word” and that “its foundation was, nevertheless, non-religious and secular.”An analysis of the definition of theocracy shows that
theocracy has three essential features:
(1) Presence of sacerdotal class or priesthood
(2) Prevalence of the law of God
(3) The sovereign or ruler who promulgates this law.
In the first place, we can agree with Dr. Qureshi that there was no ordained or hereditary priesthood in Medieval India which is the essential
feature of a theocracy. The second feature of a theocracy is the prevalence of the law of God, or religious law (as opposed to secular law). It is
admitted by almost all the scholars that the Medieval Indian state was run on the dictates of the Shara.In other words,the Law which prevailed
during Medieval India was not a secular Law.This religious law naturally went against the interests of the non-Muslim population of the country
which was in majority.All the rulers during the Medieval times were bound to rule according to the law of Islam. Though the Muslim rulers were
permitted to frame new laws according to the circumstances with the counsel of wise men, but very few rulers dared to frame such laws and the
Shara continued to be supreme throughout the Sultanate period. Many rulers during Medieval times were tolerant by nature but none (except
Akbar) could ever dare to make laws which could ensure equity and fair play to all the sections of the population. We do not come across any
law or regulation promulgated by the other Medieval Indian rulers to this effect. It was for the first time- Akbar, who promulgated a number of
regulations for the good of the people. These regulations included the abolition of the practice of enslaving prisoners of war, pilgrim tax and
jazia. Akbar also passed number of laws imposing restrictions on the sale of liquor,, child marriage, restraining of early marriage, prohibition of
sati, widow re-marriage etc.In the third place, we find that during the Medieval times no ruler could be safe on his throne unless he enforced the
Shara.

Position of Khalifa: Although the Sultan rulers of Delhi considered themselves as fully independent, they acknowledged the suzerainty of
Khalifa. According to the Muslim Law there could be only one ruler of the Muslims and Delhi Sultans always gave the impression that they were
acting as the representatives of the Khalifa.Ala ud Din Khilji was the first ruler who abandoned the policy and asserted his independence.He
held that as the Khalifa was the agent of God in religious matters, the king was the agent of God in worldly matters.The Mughal rulers tried to
assert their independence of the Khalifa by assuming the title of Badshah. They did not recognize the suzerainty of Khalifa or any other Muslim
ruler outside India.Thus the Mughal rulers widely differed from the Sultans of Delhi in this regard. Akbar particularly tried to evolve a new theory
of kingship which was essentially .National in character He made an effort to remove all checks on the authority of the king which existed in the
nature of the Ulemas or Millat.

Military State: Another important feature of the State in Medieval India was that it was military in character. The Muslim rulers maintained a
strong military force for the maintenance of law and order within the country and for the protection of the country from any possible aggression.
In fact, the State was a police state and it discharged mainly the functions of maintenance of law and order and collection of revenues.The
Government paid no attention to the welfare of the people Similarly no attention was paid to the development of means of communication or the
use of ordinary public. Whatever roads were constructed they were built mainly for the use of the military.Only some of the benevolent rulers
like Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jahan paid some attention to the welfare of the people.

Debate on the Nature of State in Medieval India

The nature of the Mughal state has been a subject of much discussion and debate. The earliest views centered on the role of religion with
Jadunath Sarkar describing it as a “theocratic state” and Vincent Smith labeling it an ‘Islamic state’. This view of the Mughal state was a
seemingly non-sectarian state, based not on the Sharia but on concept such as sulh-i-kuhl. The issue of debate thus really center on the degree
of centralization that the state could achieve.Hodgson and Mc Neil termed the Mughal state a ‘Gunpowder Empire’. This explanation seeks to
understand the rise of the Mughals in terms of technical innovation of the Mughals along with the other Islamic states that emerged in the 16th
century that gunpowder and artillery were responsible for their growth. This view has been criticized by Douglass Streisand who points out that
the Mughals could take the strongest forts in Hindustan only after prolonged and difficult stages (Chittor and Ranthambor). Perhaps it was more
of the incorporation of the local elites in the army than their military technique that made the Mughals to establish their state.
Percival Spear, Qureshi and A.L. Srivastava have stated that Mughal state was based on elaborate bureaucratic structure especially with
respect to the mansabdari system. They regard the mansabdari as being analogous to modern day bureaucrats. The state was finely graded
with regard to rank and responsibility. References are also made to the system of checks and balances used for administrative purposes. The
state was divided into subhahs with two sets of interdependent officials (one, handling revenue and the other military).

However, while the Mughal state does display bureaucratic feature, it cannot be dubbed as ‘bureaucratic’ state. Bureaucracy is a modern
concept where officials are responsible to an impersonal head. In the Mughal state, officials owned their loyalty to a person, the Emperor, and
not the state. Moreover, modern day bureaucracy has fixed salaries, selection based on merit and does not perform military duties. But in
Mughal state, salaries were paid both in cash and jagir in return for military contingent and royal blood get it as hereditary.
A more acceptable theory of the state has been sanctioned by Stephen P. Blake, who has termed the Mughal state as the ‘Patrimonial
Bureaucratic state’. The ruler of such a state operates on the basis of a personal traditional authority, whose model is a patriarchal family. It
entails authority to a person, not an office and a reciprocal loyalty between subject and master. A patrimonial state arises with the extension of
authority beyond the royal household into the larger realm in an absolute unrestrained manner.Blake shows a clear similarity between this
model and the Mughal State. He argues that the Mughal state was run as an extension of the royal household. They inherited their kingdom as
patrimony and then ruled through elaborate machinery. The mansabdars are seen an extra patrimonial officer, who though given a certain
degree of independence, have to report directly to the king.

R.P Tripathi has focused on the Central Asian background and the Central Asian background and the influences of the Chagatai tradition upon
the Mughal state. He argues that the underlying foundation for the Mughal state was provided by the Turko-Mongol theory of kingship. He cites
Babur’s division of his kingdom for his sons, the use of light in court etiquette, the constant reference to Chengiz Khan and the dominance of the
Turani element.The views have been criticized by Iqtadar Alam Khan, who argues that far from being centralizing, this theory of kingship had
various fissiparous tendencies. Sovereignty and authority was not vested in the Emperor but in the royal family. While the Mughals were
ethnically Turk from the time of Akbar there was a movement away from the Chagatai tradition.
Another concept worthy of study is that of Burton Stein’s motion of a segmentary state. He emphasizes the pyramidal segmentation of political
of political power and the division between ritual sovereignty and the distribution of political power and the division between ritual sovereignty
and the distribution of political power. A single center, the Mughal court embodied ritual sovereignty controlling its subordinates. The political
segments ranged from the parganas, sarkars and watan-jagirs of the Rajputs. Judged by the norms of imperial centralization, the Mughal state
hardly conformed to the criteria of a segmentary state.Douglas Streisand, who studied the first half of Akbar’s reign have argued the Mughal
state was compromise between the Turkish ideals of sovereignty and the segmentary state of the Chola while at the core, the Mughal state was
typically Turkish in the outlying areas, it was largely sementary in nature.

Decline of the Mughal Empire

The collapse of Mughal Empire has remained a widely debated issue amongst the historians.Decline is the gradual or continuous loss of
strength whereas fall is the sudden loss of power. Collapse of the Mughal Empire was a decline because it was a gradual process.
There are many factors that led to the decline of the Mughal Empire. Some of them are inefficient administration, bad emperors, structural
contradictions, etc.
Satish Chandra- The Mughal system of tax collection followed a hierarchical order which included Emperors, Jagirdars and Zamindars.The
zamindars were given lands on a hereditary basis. The lower part of the pyramid never changed. On the other hand, Emperors and Jagirdars
were temporary. Satish Chandra points to this Jagirdari system and claims that it underwent a “deep-seated social crisis”. Aurangzeb was
unable to identify the crisis and made some changes in administrative policies in order to attain a balanced budget (equating the imperial
expenditures with the incomes). These policies deepened the conflict. At the same time, zamindars became powerful which created a structural
contradiction in the Mughal rule. Chandra believes that the jagirdari system could have worked, had the Mughals reconciled with the zamindars
and come up with a settlement with Marathas. But by the time settlement was achieved, after Aurangzeb, Marathas had become powerful and
the Mughal aristocracy had weakened7. This further deepened the jagirdari crisis which eventually led to the downfall of the Mughal Empire.

Irfan Habib- The focus of Irfan Habib is on the structural contradictions of the Mughal polity that eventually led to the decline of the Empire. The
Mughals did not allow the Jagirdars to be at a same Jagir for more than four years. This was a done in order to ensure that Jagirdars didn’t
become powerful in there jagirs. Even though this policy in some sense gave made the centralisation of power possible in the Mughal regime,
but at the same time this policy also made Jagirdars oppressive in demanding the revenues. They started demanding excessive taxes in places
with fertile soil as they had no reason to think about the future implications of their act. As a result the peasantry had to suffer a lot. The payment
of taxes left the peasants destitute. This oppression was the driving force for peasant revolts. Throughout the Mughal regime there were
numerous peasant revolts. Sometimes zamindars also joined, supported or started the revolts. These zamindars thought that the increased tax
demands had left them worse-off as they were left with lesser amount of the collected revenue. These revolts eventually led to the collapse of
the Mughal Empire especially the revolt of the Jats, Satnamis and the Marathas.

C.A. Bayly- Taking a different stand, Bayly argues that after the death of Aurangzeb and the rise of local or small scale rulers in the
subcontinent, a new form of class started to develop. These were rich peasants and zamindars that had become powerful due to the collapse of
the pyramid of the Mughal aristocracy. Many of them started indulging in non-farming activities such as trade or production of textiles, etc.
This growing ‘middle class’ benefited from the increased economic trade. Bayly argues that the rich peasantry along with the small scale rulers
led to the downfall of the Mughal Empire.

Rohan D’Souza- Questioning the arguments of Bayly and revisiting the structural contradictions argument, he looks at the decline of Mughal
Empire from the vantage point of the weakening military might. He affirms to the fact that Mughal administration functioned smoothly as long as
equilibrium was maintained in the administrative structure. The Mughal conquests in the Deccan during Aurangzeb’s time had an adverse
impact on this equilibrium. The wars with the Marathas not only increased the expenditure of the Mughal administration for holding on to the
Deccan but also humiliated the Mughal military prowess. The increased cost of military expansion further deepened the jagirdari crisis that
already had sprouted in the Mughal Empire.

The 'Great Firm' Theory of the Decline of the Mughal Empire

The 'great firm' theory of Mughal decline,clarifies and extends existing economic theories of imperial decline. Indigenous banking firms were
indispensable allies of the Mughal state, and the great firms' diversion of resources, both credit and trade, from the Mughals to other political
powers in the Indian subcontinent contributed to the downfall of the empire.The period of imperial decline coincided with the increasing
involvement of banking firms in revenue collection at regional and local levels, in preference to their continued provision of credit to the central
Mughal government. This involvement increased from 1650 to 1750, and it brought bankers, more directly than before, into positions of political
power all over India. This period of 'great firm' partnership with regional powers, among them the East India Company, was followed by political
losses for the great banking firms. When in the 1750s the Company began to achieve political dominance throughout India, it turned against
indigenous bankers and systematically displaced them, usurping their functions as bankers to the Company and to other political rulers and
downgrading their roles in the collection of land revenue. One consequence was the relegation of indigenous bankers to less crucial roles in the
political system. A second effect was the diminished historical awareness of the bankers' earlier importance in Mughal India.

The ruler's relationships with diverse groups and institutions had to be carefully balanced, and any disruption could set off a chain of events
weakening the empire. External pressures combined with internal tensions could intensify problems of imperial control. When other powers
competed with the Mughals for the credit and other services offered by Indian bankers, the imperial bureaucracy was threatened. It became
more dependent upon the banking firms and it had to develop better working methods.Other strong connections between great firms and the
Mughal state came through the loans and credit extended to individual nobles and officials. Successive attempts by the state to regulate or
prohibit these transactions testify to their persistence and to the state's perception of them as weakening imperial control. Nobles borrowed
money frequently, using the jagirs as security and giving claims upon the anticipated land revenues to bankers. High interest rates prevailed,
but nobles allegedly preferred jagirs to payment of a cash salary, since jagirs were acceptable security for bankers.

The banker's assumption of key positions in eighteenth-century systems of revenue collection has usually been attributed to the increasing
weakness of the central government, leading to revenue contracting and emphasizing the need for capital to secure initial contracts.From 1650
to 1750, several historical developments indicate why and how bankers were shifting their support and investment from the Mughals to other
political rulers. First, the Mughals failed to protect bankers adequately in the second half of the seventeenth century.Policies and actions of the
later emperors Aurangzeb and Farukhsiyar indicate tensions between bankers and the Mughal state.Two other developments from 1650 to
1750 show the changing economic and political orientation of the great banking firms: the migration of bankers from Mughal urban centers to.
those of other powers, and the banker's extension of trade and credit transactions to newcomers, the Dutch and the English, in contrast to their
earlier policies.These migrations have generally been attributed to negative factors, such as the Mughal inability to protect commerce or the
raids of Marathas, Jats, and Afghans.

After 1750, the East India Company brought about major changes which were detrimental to the economic and political interests of the
indigenous banking firms. The Company had relied upon Indian bankers as sources of credit, and often as agents for the collection of revenue,
as it gained territory. Now the Company displaced them, not only as the Company bankers but as bankers to Indian rulers as well. The
Company also displaced bankers as the key intermediaries in the land revenue collection.Not only were indigenous banking firms displaced in
Company territories, the Company acted against them in princely states.

ADVANTAGES OF THE 'GREAT FIRM' THEORY

The theory proposes that it was the redirection of economic and political support by the great banking firms of Mughal India from 1650 to 1750
which proved the decisive factor in the decline of the empire. This theory brings together the economic factors associated with the decline in a
way that emphasizes their interrelationships. It also reorders the causative factors in significance, pointing to the economic decisions made by
the great banking firms as the most important cause of irreversible decline, because so many of the other groups and institutions were
dependent upon the banking firms.A great advantage of this theory is that it relates the rise of the East India Company to the decline of the
Mughal empire in a concrete and cumulative manner emphasizing processes rather than events or individuals. It lends continuity to revenue
history, linking territorial conquest with the collection of the land revenue through the agency of indigenous banking firms.
Nature of South Indian Polity

The region south of the Krishna Tungabhadra doab formed South India. A feature that influenced the 16th century South Indian polity, economy
and society was the migration of the Telugu population from the northern tracts which started from the mid-15th century and continued during
the 16th century.There might have been numerous reasons for these migrations like, the Bahmani pressure; deliberate attempts on the part of
the Vijayanagara rulers to extend their dominion further south; natural process, that is, movement from more densely populated areas; the soil
was well suited to the migrants since it was excellent for dry farming, etc.

As for the nature of South Indian states, some historians have termed the Vijayanagara state as 'feudal;' some call it a 'war state' others have
highlighted its 'segmentary' character.In the 'feudal' model, the chiefs were required to render military service to their overlords, but they were
free to administer their territories. I11 the 'segmentary' state, the peripheral chiefs recognized the ritual sovereignty of the Centre, but the
agrarian surplus did not flow from the segment to the core.during the 16th century, the 'segmentary' character gradually changed towards
centralization. For Burton Stein, who is the major propounder of the 'segmental state theory, the process began as early as Krishnadevaraya's
reign. The change occurred mainly because of the widespread unrest among the Karnataka (Ummattur) and Tamil chiefs that led
Krishnadevaraya to think of more comprehensive strategies. These included : monopoly of force under royal control; posting trusted Brahman
commanders at the forts and recruitment of local force from the forest people (poligars), etc.During the 16th century, specially.from Rama
Raya's reign onwards. another feature developed in the South Indian polity, that is what Burton Stein describes as the rise of ' partrirnonialisrn '.
Rama Raya replaced the Brahman commanders of the forts by his own kinsmen and granted more autonomy to the Telugu chiefs.The Malabar
kingdoms were organized more on 'feudal' lines. The Nayar chiefs enjoyed autonomous powers in their territories for which they performed
compulsory military service to their overlords. However, these 'feudal' chiefs were hereditary owners of land..

Four Conventional Theories of Islamization in India

Theories purporting to explain the growth of Islam in India may be reduced to four basic modes of reasoning. The first of these, the
Immigration theory, is not really a theory of conversion at all since it views Islamization in terms of the diffusion not of belief but of peoples. In
this view, the bulk of India’s Muslims are descended from other Muslims who had either migrated overland from the Iranian plateau or sailed
across the Arabian Sea. Although some such process no doubt contributed to the Islamization of those areas of South Asia that are
geographically contiguous with the Iranian plateau or the Arabian Sea, this argument cannot, for reasons to be discussed below, be used to
explain mass Islamization in Bengal.

The oldest theory of Islamization in India, the Religion of the Sword thesis, stresses the role of military force in the diffusion of Islam in India and
elsewhere. Dating at least from the time of the Crusades, this idea received big boosts during the nineteenth century, the high tide of European
imperial domination over Muslim peoples, and subsequently in the context of the worldwide Islamic reform movements of the late twentieth
century. Its general tone is captured in the way many nineteenth- and twentieth-century Orientalists explained the rise of Islam in
seventh-century Arabia.If colonial officials could imagine that the reason for the rise of Islam was its inherently militant nature, they had little
difficulty explaining its extension in India in similar terms. Yet as Peter Hardy has observed, those who argued that Indian Muslims were forcibly
converted have generally failed to define either force or conversion leaving one to presume that a society can and will alter its religious identity
simply because it has a sword at its neck. Precisely how this mechanism worked, either in theoretical or in practical terms, has never, however,
been satisfactorily explained. Moreover, proponents of this theory seem to have confused conversion to the Islamic religion with the extension
of Turk-Iranian rule in North India between 1200 and 1760, a confusion probably originating in too literal a translation of primary Persian
accounts narrating the “Islamic” conquest of India.
If Islamization had ever been a function of military or political force, one would expect that those areas exposed most intensively and over the
longest period to rule by Muslim dynasties—that is, those that were most fully exposed to the “sword”—would today contain the greatest
number of Muslims. Yet the opposite is the case, as those regions where the most dramatic Islamization occurred, such as eastern Bengal or
western Punjab, lay on the fringes of Indo-Muslim rule, where the “sword” was weakest, and where brute force could have exerted the least
influence. In such regions the first accurate census reports put the Muslim population at between 70 and 90 percent of the total, whereas in the
heartland of Muslim rule in the upper Gangetic Plain—the domain of the Delhi Fort and the Taj Mahal, where Muslim regimes had ruled the
most intensively and for the longest period of time—the Muslim population ranged from only 10 to 15 percent. In other words, in the
subcontinent as a whole there is an inverse relationship between the degree of Muslim political penetration and the degree of Islamization.

A third theory commonly advanced to explain Islamization in India is the Religion of Patronage theory. This is the view that Indians of the pre
modern period converted to Islam in order to receive some non-religious favor from the ruling class—relief from taxes, promotion in the
bureaucracy, and so forth. This theory has always found favor with Western-trained secular social scientists who see any religion as a
dependent variable of some non-religious agency, in particular an assumed desire for social improvement or prestige. Many instances in Indian
history would appear to support this theory. In the early fourteenth century, Ibn Batuta reported that Indians presented themselves as new
converts to the Khalji sultans, who in turn rewarded them with robes of honor according to their rank. According to nineteenth-century censuses,
many landholding families of Upper India had declared themselves Muslims in order to escape imprisonment for nonpayment of revenue, or to
keep ancestral lands in the family. The acculturation of captured soldiers or slaves perhaps formed another dimension of this process. Severed
from their families, and with no permanent sociocultural ties to their native homes, these men not surprisingly fell into the cultural orbit of their
patrons.Although this thesis might help explain the relatively low incidence of Islamization in India’s political heartland, it cannot explain the
massive conversions that took place along the political fringe—as in Punjab or Bengal.

To this end a fourth theory, the Religion of Social Liberation thesis, is generally pressed into service. Created by British ethnographers and
historians, elaborated by many Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals, and subscribed to by countless journalists and historians of South Asia,
especially Muslims, this theory has for long been the most widely accepted explanation of Islamization in the subcontinent. The theory
postulates a Hindu caste system that is unchanging through time and rigidly discriminatory against its own lower orders. For centuries, it is said,
the latter suffered under the crushing burden of oppressive and tyrannical high-caste Hindus, especially Brahmans. Then, when Islam “arrived”
in the Indian subcontinent, carrying its liberating message of social equality as preached (in most versions of the theory) by Sufi shaikhs, these
same oppressed castes, seeking to escape the yoke of Brahmanic oppression and aware of a social equality hitherto denied them, “converted”
to Islam en masse.

The problem, however, is that no evidence can be found in support of the theory. Moreover, it is profoundly illogical. First, by attributing
present-day values to peoples of the past, it reads history backward. Second, even if Indians did believe in the fundamental equality of mankind,
and even if Islam had been presented to them as an ideology of social equality—though both propositions appear to be false—there is
abundant evidence that Indian communities failed, upon Islamization, to improve their status in the social hierarchy. On the contrary, most
simply carried into Muslim society the same birth-ascribed rank that they had formerly known in Hindu society. Finally, as with the Sword and
Patronage theories, the Religion of Social Liberation theory is refuted by the facts of geography.
Now, the theory of Social Liberation assumes the prior existence of a highly stratified Hindu social order presided over by an entrenched and
oppressive Brahman community. If the theory were valid, then, the greatest incidence of conversion to Islam should logically have occurred in
those areas where Brahmanic social order was most deeply entrenched—namely, in the core region of Aryavarta. Conversely, Islam should
have found its fewest adherents in those areas having the least exposure to Brahmanic civilization. But it is precisely in that outer circle—the
area roughly coinciding with the areas included in the original (1947) state of Pakistan, with its eastern and western wings—that the vast
majority of South Asian Muslims reside. The modern, pre-Partition distribution of South Asian Muslims thus indicates an outcome precisely
opposite to the one predicted by the theory—namely, the less the prior exposure to Brahmanic civilization, the greater the incidence of
subsequent Islamization. If the aboriginal peoples inhabiting India’s “periphery” had never been fully absorbed in a Brahman-ordered society in
the first place, the matter of their escaping an oppressive Hindu social order cannot arise logically, just as it did not arise empirically.

Sufism: Spiritual and Cultural Traditions in India

Sufis, who had a profound impact on the social structures of Asia, is a well-organized group within the context of Muslim culture.The
introduction of Sufism among the ancestors of modern Tatars occurred in Volga Bulgaria era. In the Golden Horde, the process of Islamization
occurred along with the spread of Sufism, and then it continued after the collapse of the Horde in the territory of the newly formed Tatar
khanates, including Kazan.The spread of Islam in the Indian subcontinent did not take place by force of arms, but through its peaceful
preaching, in which the Sufis played a leading role. Sufism came to India with the first sultans, under whom it reached its highest peak.With
Sufism ideas of Islam took root among the poorest of Indians, who never had a chance to read the Koran because of their illiteracy. The Great
Moguls, up to Aurangzeb, honored Sufi teachers and implemented policies of orthodox Islam.Islam in India not only survived the hardships of
the Mongol invasion but also successfully coped with it, thanks to the efforts of the Sufis, who preserved the spiritual dimension of Islam and
were able to convince its opponents to accept its teachings.There are many mausoleums of Sufi sheikhs in India; among them are the Dargah
(abode) of Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer, Dargah of Hazrat Nasiruddin Mahmud in Delhi, also known as the Dargah of Chirag-I-Delhi Dargah of
Khawaja Banda Nawaz in Gulbarga city, Dargah of Kutbuddin Bakhtiyar Kaki or Dargah Qutb-Sahib in Mehrauli, the mausoleum of Salim
Chishti in Fatehpur Sikri.

It is believed that Sufism has Indian influences (in addition to Christian and Chinese). In particular, parallels with the ideas of Sufis can be found
in different religions; they are present in teachings of saints Teresa of Avila and John Cross, Guru Nanak or in such sacred books as the Vedas,
Adi Granth and Bhagavatgita.By the 12th century Sufism acquired traits of socially formed institute, and its main tariqahs (Chishtia,
Suhrawardiyya, Qadiriyah, Naqshbandiya) appeared. Numerous students of the Sufi sheikhs began to arrive to the Indian subcontinent to
preach Islam to the local people. Among them, the most were adherents of the Chashtia tariqah which was founded in Afghanistan in the
mid-12th century. The founder of tariqa Sheikh Muiniddin Chishti preached among the population of Punjab, Lahore and Ajmer. Method of
Suhrawardiyya tariqah (based in Iraq in the late 12th century), was propagated in India by Bahauddin Zakaria and Surhposh Jalaluddin Bukhari.
They were most active in the cities of Multan and Ush. Contrary to widespread but erroneous belief, the authorities of Muslim countries at that
time actively supported and helped Sufis. The Delhi Sultan Shamsuddin Iltutmish even appointed Zakaria Bahauddin the title of Shaykh
al-Islam. The most famous Sufis of India, Muiniddin, Fariduddin,Qutbuddin and Nizamuddin, came from Afghanistan. They came to the country
with the conquerors, thanks to their efforts, the conversion of the local population to Islam was largely peaceful. Nizamuddin Auliya preached
Islam in Delhi, from where it spread to the South of India along with the power of the Tuglak dynasty.

Sufism in India to some extent owes its appearance to the teachings of the Sikhs – the founder of Sikhism Guru Nanak tried to bring together
Islam and Hinduism and became a preacher of a new faith in the One God, the Almighty and all-pervading Creator, whose real name is not
known to anyone. At the same time, Sufis always opposed the mixing of religions or religious syncretism."Ain-I-Akbari" (institutes of Emperor
Akbar) listed 14 famous Sufis of the time, and six of them attracted both Hindus and Muslims. The most prominent of them is Sheikh Moinuddin
Chisti.The Sufi-Chist, who called the Hindus their brothers, led a life of austerity.Another prominent Sufi-Chisti was Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya
(1236-1325), known as "Mehbub-I-Ilahi" ("Beloved of God"), who settled in Delhi and taught there students for over fifty years.Another Sufi
order in medieval India was Sohrevardi.They preached "chhatri" – a synthesis of Hindu and Muslim mysticism, and even created a parallel
terminology. The Sufi school also flourished in Uttar Pradesh during the reign of Emperor Akbar.Sufi ghazals on Sindhi are often known for their
tenderness of music and spirituality, Sindhi is written in Devanagari and Arabic script.Among the famous students of the founder of Sufism in
India, Moinuddin Chisti, was Qutub-ud-Din Bakhtiar.The main distributors of Sufi thought, as it is known, were poets, such as Amir Khusrow
Dehlavi. They employed the secret language of metaphors and verbal cipher.

With the penetration of Muslim ideology and culture in the Hindustan, Sufi sheikhs and poets enjoyed protection in the spread of Islam. They
held discussions with representatives of different religions on the theme of spirituality, it was a time of flourishing of culture and art. By
preaching the love of God, which was the staple of their spirituality, Sufis were able to acquaint Hindus with Islam. They were not missionaries
in the conventional sense of the word, they were people inspired by the love of God, who wanted to gain His satisfaction by any action.Sufis
treated all people equally well, without giving importance to their religion, caste and tribal affiliation.Sufism is not a religion, not a belief in a
complex of rituals, but the order and process of obtaining and implementing supra-rational knowledge.Sufis do not engage in the public life or
work for the government or take up jobs in law enforcement agencies. Such religious bigots assume that people have to endure suffering suffer
hardships all their life.As a purely domestic movement, it absorbed all the best of Islam and Hinduism, thus laying the foundation of a composite
culture of India.

SIKHISM
The Sikh religion originated with the advent of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh Religion, and developed through the successive Gurus who
appeared in the form of same divine light and reached its climax with the creation of Khalsa by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh.According to
the popular legends, Guru Nanak had divine knowledge from the time of his birth and got revelation in Bein River near Sultanpur.Guru Nanak’s
three important precepts are: first, contemplation of One God (nam- japna); second, earning one’s livelihood (kirat karna) and sharing one’s
earnings with others (vand chhakna). Guru Nanak repudiated the orthodox practices and rituals of both the communities and stressed on the
practice of truthful living. To demolish caste- system he insisted on common kitchen and built the first dharamsala or chapel of the Sikhs at
Kartarpur.Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708), the tenth Guru, was the son of Guru Teg Bahadur and incorporated his hymns in the Holy Granth
and installed Guru Granth Sahib as the living Guru. He confronted the Mughal Empire and struck a blow to the power of Aurangzeb. He
sacrificed all his sons but refused to embrace Islamic faith.The spirit of the integration of the sacred and the secular was carried on by Guru
Gobind Singh in the creation of the Khalsa in the year 1699 through the baptismal ceremony of amrit (nectar).The five emblems prescribed for
the order of the khalsa, keshas, kangha, kachha, kirpan and kara, popularly referred to as the five K’s are an indispensable part of the order of
the khalsa.The Adi Granth was compiled by the fifth Guru, Guru Arjan Dev in 1604 at Amritsar.Besides the compositions of first five Gurus and
the ninth Guru, compositions of Bhagats and Muslim saints are also incorporated in the Holy Scripture.The arrangement of hymns in Guru
Granth Sahib is not subject-wise but it is in accordance with the Ragas (musical measures).

TEACHINGS OF SIKH RELIGION

God: Sikhism believes in the monotheistic concept of One God who is Transcendent and Immanent; Impersonal and Personal; Nirguna and
Sarguna. The uniqueness of God is manifest in different ways. He is the only one God and there is no other second.
Soul: There is an identical relation between God and soul which is mentioned as ‘the Lord abides in the soul and the soul in the Lord. The aim of
man’s life is to rediscover the real nature of self which is in no way different from God but indulgence in mundane aspirations reinforce his ego
and strengthens this false notion of separateness.
Divine Will:Divine Will is all-pervasive and immanent and manifests itself in different ways which are incomprehensible to human mind. Not only
the creation but also the sustenance of the universe is in accordance with the Divine Will.
Divine Grace: It is often referred in the scripture as kirpa, karam, Prasad, mehar, daya or bakhsis. One cannot understand God through
cleverness but He can be realized through Grace.Grace is a mystery but it is earned by way of prayer and devotion.
Salvation: The Sikh religion repudiates the speculations of the Indian thinkers about the future plane of existence and stresses that heaven and
hell are just the mental states to be experienced here and now. The immortality of soul is also conceived in the sense of realization of eternity of
values in the temporal world.

The Sikh ethics stresses not on the theoretical aspect of morality or a mere description of moral life but is indeed concerned with the moral
praxis and codes of human conduct.The stress is laid on the practice of universal moral norms such as wisdom, courage, contentment, justice,
humility, truthfulness and endurance etc.

Syncretic Culture of India

In India, the world religions that flourish today are: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity, and Zoroastrian. Out of these, the
first four are the products of the Indian soil i.e., Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The latter three, i.e., Islam, Christianity, and
Zoroastrian entered into India at different times and in different phases.The everlasting impact on the Indian social, cultural, and religious life
has been made by Islam and Christianity.both, Islam and Christianity, made everlasting impact on the traditional Indian life and culture, sheer
because the followers of both the religions ruled over the country for over 800 years, and proselytized the people by any means.

It is axiomatic that such a long rule by the Muslims in India would bring everlasting impact on Indian society and culture. And this could be
observed in many walks of life of an average Indian. The impact of Islam in India could be seen not only in Indian social life, but it could also be
discovered in art and architecture, in literature, in language, in philosophical thoughts, in dress, in food habit, and in many such domains.
Unaccountable number of mutual borrowing and even assimilation of social and cultural elements have taken place among the Hindus and
Muslims.A number of Hindu marriage rituals have been adopted in Muslim marriages.One of the significant consequences of the advent of
Islam and Christianity in India was the emergence of Urdu language and introduction of English in the Indian soil, respectively. Language is the
most effective means and carrier of transmission of cultural elements and behavior. It also serves as one of the most effective tools of
cultural diffusion.Urdu language is the product of the Indian sub-continent. It is to be noted that Urdu developed under the influence of the
Persian and Arabic languages, and both of which have though contributed a significant amount of vocabulary to it; however, it is more important
to note that around 99% of Urdu verbs have their roots either in Sanskrit or in Prakrit languages.During the Muslim rule, Persian was the official
language. However, after the establishment of the British, it was replaced by Urdu, which was then popularly called Hindustani dialect or
language.Even then, during the long period of Muslim rule in India, despite adopting a lot of Islamic cultural tradition, a Hindu then also
remained a staunch Hindu, except, if not converted to Islam, either by the force of sword or at his will voluntarily.There have been individuals,
who can be said to have epitomized Syncretic values during their life time, for example, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Rahim, Mullick Mohammad Jaisi,
Raskhan, Dara Shikoh,and many others in the past.

Social Stratification
The medieval rural society was highly stratified. This stratification was the result of many factors a) Resource base – availability of seeds, oxen,
agricultural implements, Persian wheel, wells for irrigation, etc.; and b) Caste also intensified the stratification – the higher castes were
assessed at lower rates and lower castes had to pay revenue at much higher rate; c) nature and pattern of crops produced further intensified
the gulf – those who could produce cash crops would be better placed than those cultivating food crops. The differentiation further deepens on
the basis of those who reaped one crop a year and those growing more than 4-5 crops.Irfan Habib states that the claims on individual property
‘gave rise to condition of social hierarchy’ in the medieval period.While commercialization on the one hand resulted in intensification of social
stratification, on the other hand it led to increase in cash flow and thus added prosperity. According to Satish Chandra monetization, cash nexus
and natural calamities ‘accentuated the process of social segmentation’.

CASTE IN THE RURAL SOCIETY

‘Caste’ was at the ‘core’ of the rural social structure. No aspect of rural society could well be explained without understanding caste equations.
Irfan Habib comments that ‘the caste system remained an important pillar of the system of class exploitation in medieval India’.Caste was the
major component in establishing hierarchy in the rural society, particularly in the multi-caste villages. Athat Ali proposes that in the medieval
period, ‘The caste defined who could be a peasant; it created hereditary menial labourers to sustain peasant agriculture; and it provided for the
village artisans and servants to serve the material and social needs of the peasant’. In the rural set up superior castes enjoyed the privileged
position. Higher castes peasants, on the basis of superiority of their castes, were assessed at concessional rates as compared to the raiyat
(ordinary peasants). Even the resource base of the superior castes was distinctly larger than the raiyats and the menial castes.The superior
castes were even able to produce cash crops in large amount as compared to raiyat and menial castes.The superior castes were even able to
produce cash crops in large amount as compared to raiyat and menial castes.Thus caste was one of the main factors of rural differentiation.

BHAKTI MOVEMENT
The term Bhakti is derived from the Sanskrit root “Bhaj” means to serve.The term Bhakti is defined as “devotion” or passionate love for the
Divine. Moksha or liberation from rebirth was not in the following of rules, regulations or societal ordering, but it was through simple devotion to
the Divine.Prior to the coming of Islam to India, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism were the dominant religions. Hinduism lost its simplicity. Many
philosophical schools appeared. Two different sects, i.e., Vaishnavism and Saivism also appeared within Hinduism. In course of time Sakti
worship also came into existence. Common people were confused on the way of worshipping God.Added to these, the caste system,
untouchability, blind worshipping and inequality in society caused dissensions among different sections of the people.On the other hand when
Islam came to India,it preached unity of God and brotherhood of man. It emphasized monotheism. It attacked idol worship. It preached equality
of man before God.The oppressed common people and the people branded as low castes were naturally attracted towards Islam. It only
increased the rivalry among religions. Fanaticism, bigotry, and religious intolerance began to raise their heads. It was to remove such evils
religious leaders appeared in different parts of India. They preached pure devotion called Bhakti to attain God.

Bhakti movement originated in South India between the 7th and the 12th centuries A.D. The Nayanars, who worshiped Siva, and the Alwars,
who worshiped Vishnu, preached the idea of Bhakti. They carried their message of love and devotion to various parts of South India through the
medium of the local language. They preached among common people. It made some of the followers of the Vedic faith to revive the old Vedic
religion. Saints like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa gave their concepts of God and the individual soul.The Bhakti movement in North India
gained momentum due to the saints of the Bhakti Movement, who were were men and women of humble origin. They came from all castes and
classes. They had visited from place to place singing devotional songs. They had also preached the Unity of God and brotherhood of man.
They had stressed tolerance among various religious groups.
All Bhakti cults are essentially monotheistic. It is immaterial whether he is called Shiva, Krishna or Devi. They all symbolize the One and the
Eternal. It is the religion, philosophy and social thinking that were created during this revival, which enabled Hinduism to reassert itself in the
following period.The saints preached in the language of the common people. They did not use Sanskrit, which was the language of the cultured
few. These saints laid stress on purity of heart and practice of virtues like Truth, Honesty, Kindness and Charity. According to these saints, only
virtuous man could
realize God. These saints considered God as Omnipresent and Omnipotent. Even a householder could realize God by love and devotion.
Some regarded God as formless or Nirguna while others considered him as having different forms or Saguna.The movement had two main
objects in view. One was to reform Hindu religion to enable it withstand the onslaught of Islamic propaganda. And the second was to bring
about a compromise between Hinduism and Islam.
Characteristics of Bhakti Movement.
 Belief in One God.
 There was no need to worship Idols or to perform elaborate rituals for seeking his grace.
 The equality of all castes- There was no distinction of high or low as far as devotion to God was concerned
 The emphasis on the Hindu – Muslim Unity.
FACTORS THAT HELPED THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BHAKTI MOVEMENT
 The persecution of Hindus by the Muslim rulers, who tried to convert them to Islam and imposed Jaziya if they were not prepared to
become followers of Islam.
 The ill-treatment of the lower classes in Hindu society by the persons of upper castes.The people of the lower caste had to suffer injustice
and cruelties.
 The elaborate rituals and rigor in religion was not liked by common man.
 The enthusiasm and the inspiration of the Bhakti saints. They tried to remove the evils of Hindu society and gave it a new vigor and vitality.
 The inner vitality of the Hindu religion that resulted in an intellectual and a moral revival of Hinduism.
Torch Bearers of Bhakti Movement :Ramanuja, Ramananda, Kabir, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya, Tulsi Das, Tukaram, Janabai, Mirabai.
BHAKTI MOVEMENT IN SOUTH INDIA:In South India, the Nayanars and Alwars were the noted saints of the Bhakti movement. The Nayanars,
the devotees of Siva, were sixty three in number.The Alwars were the worshipers of Lord Vishnu who were twelve in number.Another was
Basava who lived in Karnataka. He founded the Virasaiva or Lingayat sect.
Effects of Bhakti Movement
 The Bhakti movement had brought the Hindus and the Muslims closer to each other.
 The equality concept preached by the leaders reduced the rigidity of the caste system to a certain extent.
 The Bhakti movement freed the common people from the tyranny of the priests.
 It checked the excesses of polytheism.
 It encouraged the spirit of toleration.
 It improved the moral and spiritual ways of life of the medieval society.
 The reformers preached in local languages.It led to the development of Vernacular literature.They composed hymns and songs in the
languages spoken by the people.Therefore there was a remarkable growth of literature in all the languages.A new language Urdu, a
mixture of Persian and Hindi, was developed.

SAIVISM
Saivism is said to be the oldest and pre-historic religion in India.It is a religion which holds Siva as the supreme Lord. Scholars try to trace the
origin of Saivism to the pre-Vedic period.There is a difference of opinions among scholars whether Saivism is Vedic or non-Vedic.One of the
minor deities of the Vedic period, Rudra is said to be associated with Siva.The evolution of Siva is found in Yajurveda where one hundred
names are attributed to him.The omnipotent and omniscient aspects of Siva are also mentioned here.Siva is understood as God of destruction
or annihilation and is known as saṁhāramūrti.The reference to Siva in ancient Sangam literature onwards is a witness to his prowess
and popularity in Tamil country.The earliest specific mention of Siva by a foreigner is traceable to Megasthenes. In the age of the Guptas the
worship of Siva assumed a considerable importance. But a Bhakti movement of Saivism is only traceable to south India and reached a great
height.Some Siva cults have developed some unpleasant features, such as animal sacrifice, psychopathic self mortification. Most of the sects
consider Siva as God of love and grace.

Religious and philosophical traditions in Saivism.

The Paśupatas are the oldest saivaite tradition in the north.Their yogic practice consists of a constant meditative contact with Siva in solitude.
That is the reason they go frequently to burial places. Their ritual practices were often regarded as revolting.

More extreme groups, called Kapālikas, believed in an ostentatious indifference to anything worldly.They carried human skulls, kapāla, and a
bowl of liquor. Due to this factor they are worshiped as the skull bearer, Kapālika or the frightful one, Bhairava.

In the ninth century a monistic form of Saivism developed in Kashmir known as Trikasastra or simply Trika Saivism. Kashmiri Saivism teaches
that Siva is the absolute reality from which all else has emanated. For Trika the Absolute is both Siva and Sakti, from a theological, theistic
perspective.Kashmiri Saivism attempts to give important status to matter more than advaita school of monism. It rejects outright the negative
view of life in the world. Having deep roots in Tantrism, it does not believe in the renunciation of the world.

Vīra Saivism or Liṅgayatism as a saivite religious movement gained momentum during the beginning of 12th century in the North-Western parts
of Karnataka.This tradition regards Siva as supreme and people must worship only Him.They theoretically abandon all caste distinctions and
grant women equal status with men. They are strict vegetarians, and they are opposed to all forms of magic and sorcery.Fire is regarded as so
pure that it is not to be used for creation purposes; consequently the lingayats bury rather than burn their dead.

Śaiva Siddhānta is a system of philosophy developed in Tamil Śaivites.Śaiva Siddhānta is claimed to be a conclusive philosophy of all those
who worship Lord Siva.Śaiva Siddhānta is a theistic philosophy, containing both philosophy and religion.

VAISHNAVISM
Sources of origin of Vaishnava religious tradition are varied. Some scholars trace it in the Vedic tradition itself.While others consider that it
appeared after bhagavatam arose. With regard to South Indian Vaishnavism, some consider that Krishna cult in the south started with Yadavas
in Madurai who were said to be a section of the Vrsni people that colonized the pandya country.The incarnated forms of Vishnu are
avatāras.According to Vaishnavite tradition, there have been only nine such incarnations; there is one yet to come.Vaishnavism regards the
image of Vishnu as one of the real forms of the Lord. The belief is that God descends into the idol and makes it divinely alive, so that he may be
easily accessible to his devotees.
Driven by the Bhakti movements of various saints and sages, Vaishnavism flourished both in religious and philosophical spheres.The greatest
among the Vaishnava philosophers was Ramanuja, a theistic philosopher. He proclaimed that the way of devotion, Bhakti-mārga, leads to a
state of bliss. It is only to be gained by intense devotion to God.Madhva proclaimed the doctrine of dualism. According to him, God, souls and
matter are eternally distinct. Liberation is not the union with God but being drawn closer to God and dwelling for ever with God in the
contemplation of His glory.In the twelfth century, after Ramanuja came Nimbarka who was a devotee of Krishna and he spent his time mostly in
Mathura the birth place of Krishna. For him, Brahman is Gopala-Krishna accompanied by Radha.According to Nimbarka the souls can attain
liberation only at the end of life and not while living in the body.Vallabha was another saint and philosopher who made Vaishnava Bhakti
movement very popular. He popularized the worship of Sri Krishna and preached that salvation could be achieved by Bhakti towards Krishna.
Among his many religious works, two books, namely subhodini and siddanta rahasya become very popular.His system is qualified as pure
non-dualism.The most celebrated and popular Vaishnava reformer of Bengal is Chaitanya who was a contemporary of Vallabha. He preached
Krishna Bhakti through kirtans or devotional songs. He popularized devotional songs extolling the love of Radha and Krishna.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Astronomy and Physical Sciences

Astronomy was used not only for working out the calendar, the dates of the eclipses and for the determination of time but also for casting
horoscopes for astrological purposes. Astronomy was also needed for fixing the direction of Mecca, in order to properly align the mosques.The
astrolabes made in India during the seventeenth century, were no doubt an achievement of metal and wood-workers and of mathematical
arts.The most important stride in the field was made at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Raja Jai Singh, under the patronage of Emperor
Muhammad Shah, established observatories at a number of places, such as Delhi,Jaipur,Ujjain, Benaras and Mathura. He paid special
attention to the instruments of observation.

Chemistry
In the field of metallurgy too we notice some remarkable development. Before the close of the sixteenth century, zinc was isolated by a process
known neither to the Arab civilization nor to the Europeans who learnt the art in the early nineteenth century. It has now been suggested by
archaeological excavations at Zawar in Rajasthan that Indians knew how to isolate zinc by about the first century after Christ.Tin-coating of
copper and brass learnt from the Arab world became prevalent in medieval India, thereby enabling copper vessels to be more widely used.
Soldering, particularly of gold on agates, crystals and other brittle materials, was done so efficiently, as to earn commendation from Europeans.

Medicine
Aristocratic patronage for physicians and surgeons was not wanting, though, perhaps, surgeons did not enjoy a very high status in comparison
to physicians.The Greek (Unani) system of medicine still widely practised in India arrived with the Muslims. One would have expected
improvement by the mutual exchange between it and the already existing Indian system of Ayurveda. But the two systems remained
separate.Miyan Behwa wrote an important work on medicine Tibbi-i Sikandar Shahi, based on a number of Ayurvedic sources that are
explicitly mentioned.Both hakims and vaids were employed by the Emperor and the nobles. In the list of physicians at Akbar's court one finds
four vaids, i.e. practitioners of Ayurveda.In surgery, blood letting, and in orthopaedics, setting right dislocated bones were the known
practices.However, unlike in contemporary Renaissance Europe, no important systematic researches in the field of anatomy or physiology
were made.Europeans were also employed as physicians by Mughal nobility but the attempt to make use of their knowledge remained confined
to individuals.

On the whole, we find that the development of science in medieval India was at a rather slow pace. There was no adequate response to
advances in science made in Europe.One possible factor could be the narrow social base of learning, i.e. learning was restricted to a small elite
group. This was to some extent due to the absence of printing.Printing was introduced in India by the Portuguese. However, the products of
their printing press were not aesthetic enough to be appreciated by the Mughal court and nobility. The possession of books was a privilege of
the rich. Thus, the spread of knowledge was prevented.

Technical innovations
Medieval India witnessed considerable improvement and changes in the field of technology. While these changes were largely a result of
diffusion from outside, some technological innovations also originated in India.Some technical devices that were invented or improved upon in
medieval India were Gearing,Belt-drive,Weaving,Paper manufacture,Distillation,Architecture,Military Technology,Ship-building,Agriculture etc.

Military Technology
The iron stirrup seems to have been introduced by the Ghorians and the Turks.Turks also brought with them the cross-bow.The next stage of
development in military technology was the use of cannon and gun powder. This innovation came to India during the latter half of the fifteenth
century from the Ottoman Empire which had itself received it from Europe.By Akbar's time, match-locks and their manufacture became
common in the imperial arsenal.An important device used in the Indian army was bana or rocket. This was made of bamboo, with iron cylinders
containing combustible materials at the tip.
Ship-building
The shipbuilding industry in the seventeenth century. witnessed far-reaching changes that mainly resulted from imitating European techniques.
However, it was the instruments used on ship where India lagged much behind Europe. Indians failed to fashion modem navigation instruments.
The main instrument used on Indian ships still remained the astrolabe.
Agriculture
Agriculture has been India's largest industry. The Indian peasants have used seed drill from antiquity; in the seventeenth century they practised
dibbling, that is, dropping of seeds into holes driven into the ground by sticks. They also practised crop rotation in most areas.The new crops
introduced in the seventeenth century that came from the New World were tobacco and maize. These crops came to be grown quite widely. By
the fifteenth century, the peasants of Bengal also took up sericulture and by the seventeenth century, Bengal had emerged as one of the great
silk exporting regions in the world. Horticulture developed considerably under aristocratic patronage. Various types of grafting were introduced.